enocean, williamson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 11818693 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 41.50 112(2) Jackson Walker LLP WINTER, JOHN M

As to claims 22–28, we are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the Examiner did not overcome the presumption that the limitation “protocol translator for receiving” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. 

It is well established that the use of the term “means” triggers a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 governs the construction of the claim term. Conversely, where, as here, the claim language does not recite the term “means,” we presume that the limitation does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6. However, this presumption can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that “the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” The correct inquiry is “whether skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that a claim limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming.” Therefore, “[u]ltimately, whether claim language invokes § 112, ¶ 6 depends on how those skilled in the art would understand the structural significance of that claim language.” 

EnOcean GmbH v. Face Intern. Corp., 742 F.3d 955, 958 (2014) (citations omitted). See also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL 3687459, at *7 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc) (“we should abandon characterizing as ‘strong’ the presumption that a limitation lacking the word ‘means’ is not subject to § 112, para. 6”). As with the term “receiver” in EnOcean, the term “protocol translator” (i.e., the absence of the term means) presumptively connotes sufficiently definite structure to those of skill in the art. See EnOcean at 960. The Examiner made no finding to rebut that presumption.

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Andersen et al 12087755 - (D) GREENHUT 103 41.50 112(2) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RACHUBA, MAURINA T

3752 Ex Parte Esche et al 12368068 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Foley & Lardner LLP REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER

3781 Ex Parte Hawkes 12183357 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(1)/103 HAYES, SOLOWAY P.C. MATHEW, FENN C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2131 Ex Parte EL-MAHDY et al 12335077 - (D) KINDER 102 102 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC MACKALL, LARRY T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Bateman et al 11721260 - (D) OGDEN 102/double patenting 103 Waters Technologies Corporation IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte Kowa 12148165 - (D) KUMAR 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP BERTRAM, RYAN

2173 Ex Parte Dunn et al 11446019 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP HOPE, DARRIN

2179 Ex Parte Alviar et al 11961630 - (D) KAISER 102/103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A./Motorola WENG, PEI YONG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Macauley et al 11970083 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC CHANG, KAI J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte FitzSimmons 12647742 - (D) MCMILLIN 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP HAJNIK, DANIEL F

2623 Ex Parte YUN et al 12500244 - (D) DILLON 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP ZHOU, HONG

2692 Ex Parte Prados et al 11553666 - (D) KUMAR 103 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Schonhals 10862484 - (D) FETTING 103 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC REFAI, RAMSEY

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Requester v. LUTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 8228184 et al 12/371,183 95002079 - (D) JEFFERY 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP Third Party Requester: David E. Shifren WORJLOH, JALATEE original LE, DON P

suitco surface, chef america

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Sales 12578268 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/112(2)/103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. WHATLEY, KATELYN B

Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the Specification.  The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.  While claims under examination are not normally limited to specific embodiments described in an application, the Examiner's "construction [must] be 'consistent with the specification, ... and ... claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (second emphasis added). That is, "[t]he broadest-construction rubric ... does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention," but "[r]ather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teaching in the underlying patent [application]." Id. at 1260. ...

In the absence of an explicit definition by Appellants, we accord the claim terms "unique" and "and" their ordinary and plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with Appellants's own specification.  Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, mean exactly what they say.)

Suitco Surface, Inc., In re, 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111.01

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Hamilton, et al 12330697 - (D) MOHANTY 102/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

3682 Ex Parte Angell et al 11862299 - (D) STACOVICI 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BROWN, ALVIN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte DAGOSTINO et al 12509568 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Covidien LP DORNBUSCH, DIANNE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Kuo et al 12473510 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1762 Ex Parte Koellnberger 12240109 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. ENG, ELIZABETH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Gang 10703662 - (D) COURTENAY 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2445 Ex Parte Sandstrom 11563079 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 Sandstrom, Mark Henrik JAKOVAC, RYAN J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Wodnicki et al 11809165 - (D) HANLON 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY FOX, BRANDON C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Lucas et al 13019409 - (D) GEIER 102/103 DASCENZO Intellectual Property Law, P.C. EBNER, KATY MEYER

robertson, payne, hoeksema

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Fletcher et al 11935465 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy IBM CORPORATION TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Manchala et al 12352759 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP HON, MING Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Kabat et al 12165650 - (D) ABRAMS 103 JAY BROWN LAW FIRM MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D

Appellants assert that the Examiner has not met the burden of proof required:

“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112 , 2114 , 2163 , 2163.07(a)

3654 Ex Parte Frait et al 12838574 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD BUSE, MARK KENNETH

3692 Ex Parte Mueller et al 11847254 - (D) MOHANTY 112(1)/112(2)/103 Dilworth IP - SAP MONFELDT, SARAH M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Henriksen 11578925 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP TRUONG, THANH K

3738 Ex Parte Serafin et al 11220997 - (D) WIEKER 102/103 Christopher John Rudy HOBAN, MELISSA A

3777 Ex Parte Yuan et al 12345282 - (D) CAPP 103 Lowe Graham Jones Boston Scientific Corporation GUPTA, VANI

The Examiner's statement that the mere contemplation of the possibility of the development of a new material at some indeterminate point in the future is sufficient to form the basis of an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is an incorrect statement of the law.  References relied upon to support a rejection under 35 USC 103 must place the claimed invention in the possession of the public.  See In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314 (CCPA 1979).  An invention is not "possessed" absent some known or obvious way to make it.  In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274 (CCPA 1968).

Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(a) , 716.02(e) , 2144.09

Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968) 2121.01 , 2121.02 , 2144.09 , 2145

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Casati et al 11503661 - (D) KHAN 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent MAIS, MARK A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Plunkett et al 12883040 - (D) MURPHY 103 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP - NEW YORK PASCUA, JES F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Kihira et al 12297508 - (D) SMITH 103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA HERNANDEZ-DIAZ, JOSE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Dyrmose 12057475 - (D) BEAMER 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. LIN, JASON

2163 Ex Parte SINGH 12643444 - (D) TROCK 103 TERADATA CORPORATION PHAM, TUAN A

2169 Ex Parte Mordvinov et al 12332871 - (D) LENTIVECH 101/103 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC CHOI, MICHELE C

2169 Ex Parte Huang 11382386 - (D) KINDER 103 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. KIM, PAUL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Kutlev et al 11551896 - (D) KIM 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP (ABBI) MARCUS, LELAND R

3679 Ex Parte KAISER et al 12415646 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2)/102/103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) MCMAHON, MATTHEW R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Meng et al 12619604 - (D) HORNER 103 101/102/103 Aerojet Rocketdyne LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RYAN

3753 Ex Parte Palaoro 11813214 - (D) ASTORINO 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. PRICE, CRAIG JAMES

McLaughlin, mraz, hockerson-halberstadt, wilson1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Manjunath et al 12720689 - (D) ENGELS 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PEACH, POLINA G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Wang et al 12864205 - (D) HANLON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Gill 12084718 - (D) WOODS 103 Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA IHEZIE, JOSHUA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte DAY et al 12267815 - (D) KINDER 103 103 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP (SV) DRAGOESCU, CLAUDIA B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Irwin 10775680 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 102/103 DILWORTH IP, LLC HENRY, RODNEY M

3696 Ex Parte Deeming et al 12144538 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/103 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Grgac et al 12746948 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 MAGNA INTERNATIONAL, INC. VAN SELL, NATHAN L

It has been recognized that the question of obviousness involves hindsight reasoning:

Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.

In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Hammen et al 12136058 - (D) JIVANI 112(2)/103 Perkins Coie LLP - SHA General WITZENBURG, BRUCE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Jacobs 11852956 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SMITH, CHENEA

2487 Ex Parte Biesbrouck et al 11008165 - (D) SHIANG 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WERNER, DAVID N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Kirk 12193546 - (D) HOSKINS 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG NGUYEN, BAO LONG T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hoang 12515531 - (D) WOODS 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) FOX, JOHN C

While we are mindful that Hockerson-Halberstadt cautioned that patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to define precise proportions of elements if the specification is completely silent on the issue, that does not mean, “that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972); Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956. ...

We find the Mraz decision to be more on point than both the Wright and Nystrom cases. The Mraz case involved a claim that included an edging roll having a groove therein formed by inwardly converging inclined surfaces, with the angle of the inclines not exceeding 15°. Mraz, 435 F.2d at
1070. A prior art reference to Wilson, asserted to disclose this claim feature, and illustrating (but not explicitly disclosing in writing) an angle of incline of about 6°, was characterized by the Court as, “focus[ing] on the edge rolls, showing them with great particularity and showing the grooves thereon to have an angularity well within the range recited in appellant’s claims.” 1 Id. at 1072. This was contrasted with and distinguished from a situation in an earlier decision, In re Wilson, in which “the attempted reliance was not only on a patent drawing per se, it was on a greatly enlarged section of a small drawing obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything.” Mraz, 435 F.2d at 1072; In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1963).

1 The angle of incline was presumably determined through the simple use of a protractor.

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2125

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL INC. Requester and Respondent v. MOTIONPOINT CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7584216 et al 10/784,727 95001918 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP - MotionPoint THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original AL HASHEMI, SANA A

kronig, Jung, noznick, krammes, cowles

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Burns et al 11998673 - (D) GARRIS 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP ANDERSON, JERRY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kummer et al 11693024 - (D) CURCURI 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (EchoStar) MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

2463 Ex Parte Wu et al 12166619 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Hirth 11166464 - (D) EVANS 103 Dilworth IP - SAP ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

The Board need not use identical language to that of the Examiner to avoid triggering a new ground of rejection. It is not a new ground of rejection, for example, to provide additional explanation or to restate the reasoning of the rejection in a different way, so long as the “basic thrust of the rejection” is the same. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (concluding the Board’s additional explanation “did not change the rejection”). See also In re Noznick, 391 F.2d 946, 949 (CCPA 1968) (concluding the Board did not make a new ground of rejection when “explaining to appellants why their arguments were ineffective to overcome the rejection made by the examiner”); In re Krammes, 314 F.2d 813, 817 (CCPA 1963) (“It is well established that mere difference in form of expression of the reasons for finding claims unpatentable or unobvious over the references does not amount to reliance on a different ground of rejection” (internal citations omitted)); In re Cowles, 156 F.2d 551, 555 (CCPA 1946) (holding that the use of “different language” does not necessarily trigger a new ground of rejection).

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02

Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) 1207.03

Noznick, In re, 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973) 716.03(b)

kao, piasecki

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte Dow 11845344 - (D) BAER 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM POUGHKEEPSIE SIMONETTI, NICHOLAS J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Madruga et al 12329586 - (D) HOMERE 103 THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC IBM CORP. (AUS) RICHER, JONI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte BURMAN et al 11553130 - (D) GUIJT 112(1)/102/103 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. ROWLAND, STEVE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Benjamin 12455141 - (D) HARLOW 102/103 112(2) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) ARNOLD, ERNST V

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Harrington 11610324 - (D) MacDONALD 103 102/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP SCHALLHORN, TYLER J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Binstead 10560701 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) LAM, VINH TANG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte ORBAN et al 12164388 - (D) ASTORINO 102 102/103 PATENT DEPT - INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GIULIANI, THOMAS ANTHONY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Buitrago et al 11021166 - (D) HASTINGS 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC GOLOBOY, JAMES C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Hatscher et al 10846691 - (D) KAISER 103 SAP SE THERIAULT, STEVEN B

2183 Ex Parte Steeb 12438119 - (D) COURTENAY 103 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing GIROUX, GEORGE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Quinn et al 11616175 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 BAINWOOD HUANG & ASSOCIATES LLC LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE HUSSAIN, FARRUKH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2654 Ex Parte Grover et al 12543657 - (D) KHAN 102/103 Setter Roche LLP ZHANG, LESHUI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Wilson 12465541 - (D) GEIER 103 Vancott, Bagley Cornwall & McCarthy SWINNEY, JENNIFER B

"Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case." In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011).  "Rebuttal is merely a 'showing of facts supporting the opposite conclusion,' and may relate to any of the Graham factors including so-called secondary considerations.  If rebuttal evidence of adequate weight is produced, the holding of prima facie obviousness, being but a legal inference from previously uncontradicted evidence, is dissipated." In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citations omitted).

Piasecki, In re, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 716.01(d) , 2107.02 , 2142 , 2145

oetiker

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Wolf et al 10369289 - (D) GRIMES 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP PROUTY, REBECCA E

"In reviewing the examiner's decision on appeal, the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.... [T]he ultimate determination of patentability is made on the entire record."  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "[T]he conclusion of obviousness vel non is based on the preponderance of evidence and argument in the record." Id. at 1446.

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   707.07(f) ,   716.01(d) ,   1504.01(a) ,   2107.02 ,   2142 ,   2145 ,   2164.07

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11925713 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP LONG, FONYA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Thacker et al 12501282 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 102/103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC WU, TONG E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Vallee et al 11222034 - (D) OWENS 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. BOYER, RANDY

1774 Ex Parte Adams 13036671 - (D) ABRAHAM 103/double patenting Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, PC LEUNG, JENNIFER A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte OSULLIVAN et al 12348174 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW KUJUNDZIC, DINO

2199 Ex Parte Do et al 11807473 - (D) PYONIN 102/103 FAY SHARPE LLP / XEROX - PARC WU, QING YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Prafullchandra et al 12471259 - (D) BAER 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP ZECHER, CORDELIA P K

2434 Ex Parte Payne et al 11564379 - (D) BEAMER 103 AT&T Legal Department - T&W SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B

2443 Ex Parte Anstey et al 11839772 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM BELANI, KISHIN G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Firminger et al 12590104 - (D) MOHANTY 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 FACEBOOK, INC., SALESFORCE.COM, INC., ORACLE CORPORATION, ROCKMELT, INC., CMI MARKETING, INC., MEEBO, INC. (A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF GOOGLE INC.), CONDUIT USA, INC., GLAM MEDIA, INC., and NING, INC. Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. REAL TIME SOCIAL INVENTIONS LLC Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent Ex Parte 7853881 et al 11/825,021 95002097 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 Gutride Safier LLP Third Party Requester: COOLEY LLP ATTN: PATENT GROUP CRAVER, CHARLES R original NGUYEN, CAO H

antonie, sebek

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Ueno et al 13202829 - (D) NAGUMO 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. THOMPSON, CAMIE S

In order for optimization of a result-effective variable to have been obvious, the prior art must have recognized that the variable in question was result-effective. In Application of Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977), the predecessor to our reviewing court explained that "[t]his case, in which the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable, is another exception [to the rule that discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious].") The court also explained that "while it may ordinarily be the case that the determination of optimum values for parameters of a prior art process would be at least prima facie obvious, that conclusion depends upon what the prior art discloses with respect to those parameters." Application of Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907 (CCPA 1972)

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) 2141.02 , 2144.05

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Ex Parte Neul et al 12303443 - (D) WILSON 112(1) KENYON & KENYON LLP CHAPMAN JR, JOHN E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Plumer et al 10983874 - (D) LORIN 103 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY NELSON, FREDA ANN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Gordon et al 12419829 - (D) ABRAMS 103 MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (MET) MULLER, BRYAN R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte McSweyn 12722018 - (D) WILSON 103 102 ARENT FOX LLP BERHANU, SAMUEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Snow 12854439 - (D) FETTING 103 103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC LI, SUN M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Duval et al 12887626 - (D) OWENS 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY DYE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Sylvain 11960341 - (D) PINKERTON 103 RPX Clearinghouse, LLC KASSIM, KHALED M

2484 Ex Parte Candelore et al 11227584 - (D) HUME 112(1) 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP ZHAO, DAQUAN

2487 Ex Parte ZHAO et al 12828015 - (D) KAISER 102 Garlick & Markison (VIXS) SULLIVAN, TYLER

2493 Ex Parte Vennelakanti et al 11996588 - (D) FINK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Chen-Ritzo et al 11624316 - (D) FETTING 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAM S

3645 Ex Parte Schmid et al 12086664 - (D) STEPINA 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP HULKA, JAMES R

3685 Ex Parte Schleicher 12778904 - (D) FETTING 101 41.50 101 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. / PayPal QAYYUM, ZESHAN

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte Demircin et al 11479077 - (R) JURGOVAN 103 41.50 112(d)/103 CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP SENFI, BEHROOZ M